Two Views of a Hibiscus

[DanK]

I just got back to flowers, and I had the idea of grouping whole flower shots with macro shots. I originally thought I might do these in triples, but tonight I gave up after two. Both are focus-stacked: the whole-flower image is composited from 22 shots, and the macro is 28. The blackish stuff on the anthers is not a stacking artifact; it was there in single shots. C&C welcome, as always.

[Shadowman]

Nice. Like the backdrop on the first and the dof on the second.

[FootLoose]

Wow. I am particularly impressed with the detail in the petals of the first shot, Dan. I think it works well against the black background, too.

[Stagecoach]

Dan, I'm impressed with both the compositions and IQ with these, especially the natural look of the petals.

I undertook exactly the same exercise with a hibiscus the other night and failed miserably. The main problem I encountered was that the petals looked hard, too contrasty and just plain unnatural and would be interested to know how you lit these.

Grahame

[ShaneS]

Both are very nice Dan. I like the 2nd better as it feels more natural to me but that takes nothing away from the great quality and detail achieved in the first which is quite stunning.

[AB26]

Dan,

What I like about #1 is the contrast, colour, clarity, and detail in texture. It gives a very good idea of what the flower looks like.
The DOF control in #2 is very good.

Well done.

[deetheturk]

Two great images Dan,well worth all your hard work,well done bud!

David

[bnnrcn]

These are beautiful Dan . I don't think it is so easy to take 22-28 shots with different focus points and then stack them together, Hard and good work, conguratulations

[DanK]

Thanks, all.

Graham--overly harsh lighting is one of the most difficult things--for me anyway--of this kind of photography. Here is my rig, set up somewhat differently for a different type of shot:



For this photo, I used a smaller silver umbrella, and I placed the direct light behind and to the left of the flower, facing mostly horizontal but slightly angled toward the flower. This provided some backlight that helped accentuate the texture. For diffusion of the direct light, I have tried various things, but now I use something cheap: two sheets of baking parchment paper. The lights are 50W and 75W halogens, the larger for the umbrella, so I take a shot with a whiBal card at the beginning of each series to adjust WB later. Even with all of that, the lighting is often too harsh, and the tonal range is sometimes too large. In this case, among other things, I pulled the whites down a bit and then used the curves tool to pull down the midrange.

Dan

[Brownbear]

Beautiful images... Wonderful detail and colour in the 1st image. I'm in love with the 2nd image for the beauty and perspective.

[AB26]

I am not impressed by the leg of that tripod being so close to the edge of the table. That is looking for trouble!
Sorry could not resist.

[DanK]

I am not impressed by the leg of that tripod being so close to the edge of the table. That is looking for trouble!

You are right. I have to be very careful with it. I owned the table (which is large and expensive) before the tripod, so I make do. It just barely fits.

Another alternative, which works when you don't need to be too close to the flower, is to place the tripod on the floor.

The biggest problem with this, however, is something you can't see: it is on a regular wooden floor, which flexes. At these distances, the tiniest motion of the floor can cause enough movement of the flower to ruin the shots, which are at long exposures and have to be aligned for stacking. I used to do them in our kitchen to make use of the heavy granite counter tops, which move less. My solution is that I use a remote release and mirror lock up. Then after each shot, I focus slightly further back, trip the mirror, and then stand as still as I can, away from the camera, until everything seems to be settled, at which point I trip the shutter. Not too bad when you need 3-5 shots, which is often enough, but when you need 28, it gets tiresome.

[Suzan J]

I just love this colour! The texture of the petals is sharply defined, yet is so delicate at the same time. I have a stupid question related to the focus stacking. You mentioned that you took 22 separate shots. What is the sequence you used? In other words, which focus point did you begin with and what order did you use? I realize you used a remote shutter, but I presume that you would manually have to change each focus point, so how do you avoid any shift in position or movement from the camera???

[DanK]

I just love this colour! The texture of the petals is sharply defined, yet is so delicate at the same time. I have a stupid question related to the focus stacking. You mentioned that you took 22 separate shots. What is the sequence you used? In other words, which focus point did you begin with and what order did you use? I realize you used a remote shutter, but I presume that you would manually have to change each focus point, so how do you avoid any shift in position or movement from the camera???

Many thanks.

Always start with the nearest point you want in focus and work back. The reason is that the framing will change as you change focus. If you start at the back, you may find that you have framed too tightly and that you lose areas you want by the time you get to the front.

Yes, I manually change the focus each time. Many people insist that you need a focusing rail for this, but I don't even own one. At magnifications up to about 2:1 (the macro is a bit less than 1:1), manual focusing works fine. Just make the changes small. Having too many images only wastes time; having too few can mean having gaps where an area is out of focus.

If you are careful, it's not hard to avoid moving the camera. You need a decent tripod with good rubber feet and a solid head. I use a Manfrotto 410 "junior" geared head for this. It's expensive, bulky, and heavy, but it makes minor adjustments easy (you don't get the sag that you do with ball heads), and it holds position very well. However, it is essential that you use a remote release so that you don't cause minor motion when you trip the shutter. I often use an electronic one, but I also have a cheap wired one I bought in eBay that works just fine.

[chauncey]

A couple questions up front...what macro lens is being used and what stacking software?

Your first image is quite good but I would question the need, considering your set-up, for the number of images needing for stacking, as opposed to just increasing your depth of field.
The second image has some stacking artifacts as indicated by the muddy areas on the red stigma things.
Returning to an original, non-muddy stigma image and blending it into the final stacked image would fix it.

I try to use a longer DOF to lessen the number of images to be stacked, which helps with artifacts, then taking one more image for a desired background blur. Tis a simple matter to blend the stacked final image and the blur image using a mask and brushing in the desired blurry parts, as I did here Just the sexy stuff

That clamp that you're using to hold the flower, I've got one that I rarely use...it is prone to vibration for any reason at all, even from the furnace kicking on.

[Mike Buckley]

two sheets of baking parchment paper

Before or after they have been in the oven?

Nice work, Dan!

[Wavelength]

A pair of excellent images; both are classic differently

[DanK]

A couple questions up front...what macro lens is being used and what stacking software?

Your first image is quite good but I would question the need, considering your set-up, for the number of images needing for stacking, as opposed to just increasing your depth of field.
The second image has some stacking artifacts as indicated by the muddy areas on the red stigma things.
Returning to an original, non-muddy stigma image and blending it into the final stacked image would fix it.

I try to use a longer DOF to lessen the number of images to be stacked, which helps with artifacts, then taking one more image for a desired background blur. Tis a simple matter to blend the stacked final image and the blur image using a mask and brushing in the desired blurry parts, as I did here Just the sexy stuff

That clamp that you're using to hold the flower, I've got one that I rarely use...it is prone to vibration for any reason at all, even from the furnace kicking on.

These were done with a Canon 100mm L on a 5D3. However, it frankly doesn't much matter. Most dedicated macro lenses are very good. I have done a lot with my crop body and the much cheaper EF-S 60mm, and generally, you can't tell which are which.

I always use Zerene for stacking. It has two stacking algorithms that work quite differently; it has an excellent retouching tool that allows you to paint from single images onto the composite; and it has a plugin for Lightroom that avoids the nuisance of exporting and then deleting temporary files.

Re how many images: by accident, I shot these at f/5.6. Normally, I shoot these at around f/10, which should be around the sweet spot. However, in any event, I always make very small changes in focus. Having more images than you need wastes only time. Having too few ruins the composite, requiring that one start over. With shallow flowers, I rarely end up with more than 10, and some I've done with as few as 3. However, with deep flowers, I err on the side of too many.

Those spots are not stacking artifacts. They are present in the individual images. My guess is that dirt got on the flower. If they had been stacking artifacts, I would have removed them using Zerene's retouching tool. In fact, I started to do that, assuming as you did that they were artifacts, only to find that they were present in the original single images. I often find annoying stuff only once I have finished photos at this magnification.

Yes, I too sometimes blur the background in post, generally when there is not a lot of distance between the flower and a background. With Zerene, one way to do this is to paint the blurred background from the top image onto the composite. I will post below an image (same plant, different year) where I did that.

Re the wimberley plamp: yes, it is very sensitive to motion, but I still find it very useful.

[Kaye Leggett]

I've come late to this thread - love both the initial shots but particularly the first - wow actually.

And I also love the rig shot - for me it adds to everything, the effort, the thought, the try this.... the everything.

[DanK]

Thanks all for the comments. My wife just brought home some paper-white poppies, so that's the next project. They have heavily crinkled petals, so lighting is going to be a challenge.